joekicker

Another one. It's 2010, you know. How about live on the most-watched terrestial network, scheduled a year ago, before anyone even knew if the US would qualify let alone get to R16? Is that enough noticing for you? The world, huh? What pissant pay-TV channel is it on in India, population one billion for the tiny handful who like soccer? Didn't do much of a job educating the colonials about their enjoyable game, the English conquerors. .

I got it. I think that makes me nerdly. .

A two-hour show, right? .

No problems with any pages here. I tried that page in three browsers, heck, even Firefox loaded fine. [duck!] More proof, if any were needed, that the machines are out to get us. It does sound like maybe a memory problem your end, maybe the graphics card. Make sure you're not maxing out available RAM, especially virtual (disk-based) memory. It could be that your graphics card on your main chip (am I right about that?) hasn't got enough working space to load, store and show the big photos. You can probably give it more virtual working room by increasing the size of your virtual RAM. Which also begs the question of why people send big pix, but that's another thread, I guess. .

I predict I'll be busy for a while on the weekend. Do Not Disturb. "Luck of the draw" indeed. Turns out winning Group C was potentially quite an advantage, certainly on paper. England do NOT have a walk up a gentle slope ahead. .

I got a VERY strong feeling the OP was on about Thailand. Legally, not much difference but definitely some. And frankly, after we all quibble and niggle, Evil is right on. .

Couple of interesting pieces. The most-viewed story on the Wall Street Journal website was Though it has been a slow-seller with airlines, the $300 million Airbus A380 has been a hit with travelers. To go with it, a neat seven-photo slideshow to make you wish you worked for a company with a lot better travel budget. .

ABSOLUTELY not, this is a "bright-line rule" indeed. If you're selling news photos, there is no release needed. The only legality involved there is libel. That is so unlikely both you and the editors at BBC and CNN can simply disregard it. Sorry for the possible subjects, but every one of you (us) may find ourselves illustrating one of those articles in The Sun about all the paedos who head to Pattaya. No release will be asked for that photo, and there is about zero you can do about it -- in fact before publication, exactly zero. After publication, not EXACTLY zero of course, but very close. The text with the photo MIGHT be considered libelous but not the photo in any case I can think up. If you are selling BEER and not your despicable photo-story about the baby-abusers in Pattaya, then yes, you'll need that release. And not just in the US by a long, long shot. In Thailand among many other places. In fact I don't know of a place it isn't, apart from where you'd need government permission to publish, but even then not the subject's. . .

I've spent many years USUALLY avoiding her, but not always. I think it's... Daeng? Could be Noi, something like that, can't recall exactly. About 40, black hair, 5-foot-2, not smiling and unfortunately - sometimes the only one at the counter. .

Oh, lord, the mandatory sermon from the pulpit. What, no advertisement for Linux? I have never had any problems with Internet Exploder on this forum either, in addition to Chrome, Opera and SlimBrowser. Or Firefox, a perfectly good mid-level browser. .

Yeah it does happen, all the time. When the officials make the RIGHT decisions, everyone knows it. People go to watch the sports because they know about the sports. The time you notice the official is when he makes the WRONG CALL. When he makes the right one, everyone's fine with it -- people know the player effed up and deserved the whistle and what came next. You don't notice that official at all, because he got it right. Most events in most sports including footy proceed that way (as your anecdote actually illustrates). It seems to me that soccer is unique in how many times it does NOT happen. Soccer is sure where I notice the missed calls and the wrong calls. That could be me, but by the amount of controversy, I don't think it is. .

The US beat Algeria in the World Cup today. The US scored a goal with three minutes left to play. And get this, the ref completely forgot to disallow the goal. - US late night comedian Jimmy Fallon .

Normally two months is not a problem unless you get the clerk who's on the rag and just in from a fight with her husband. .

I use Chrome about half the time, never had a slight hitch. Make sure it's updated, and clear the cache. Click the wrench, then Under the Hood, then Clear Browsing Data. In this case, I would restart the browser after the cache is cleared, for a clear start. .

Also extend the goal posts upward, with extra points if you kick the ball through the upper portion, above where the goalie stands. Also, ban the goalie. Allow players to carry the ball. Probably a couple more refinements, that that would go a long way, agreed. Oh, forgot: bodychecking, it's a man's thing. .

Oh come on, they have done some good stuff apart from the vuvuzela skit. German comedians on Obama

Indeed. Interesting time difference for North America - games are in the morning and early afternoon. The late matches are at 2pm New York time, that being the gold standard for time in the US. Just a guess, but I'd guess in the US that interest in the game is approximately 2,470 per cent greater than interest in watching the game most of the time. The ratings for "ordinary" (non-US, non-Mexico, etc) games are about 5 million sets of eyeballs for the English broadcasts, apparently, very VERY roughly the same for Spanish. England-US was about triple that if I recall rightly which I may not. .

And in any case, who could? .

No more ties, midlife. Overtime, shootout. You want to hold that golden hardware now, you have to actually win four in a row. Love to see England go on, but my head says the Chermans. Still, my feeling is that any team that can make the last 16 is actually capable of taking it all -- not LIKELY for a dozen of them at least, but possible. .

I meant only in the heart-attack, last-minute sense, not in football excellence. I'm not hurt if you guffaw, anyhow. But the England game was not bad, and the other two were both last-second action that you don't often see. .

My boy was watching on Armed Forces TV, he said the mess hall at the base he's at was packed, the joint when nuts when the goal was scored. A lot of English (almost exclusively) people are way, way behind the times on news from the colonies. .

The teams that are through so far all have given it very, very well -- but of the eight I frankly thought the Germans showed the least effort. In fact, if you want effort, the Serbians but especially the bloody Aussies who beat the Serbs went all out and then some - they deserve a damned good word and at least a brief standing O, the Roos. The English were dead men wandering around in the second match but looked better today. I think the Germans will do them, but the sauerkraut eaters will have to step it up, they have been very flat - my opinion of course. .

Get used to it on an international forum, or get pixxy and worse. It's up to you to catch up, not the others to wait while you do. But the fact is I have shown NOTHING but respect for all sports, all the time, not least because I enjoy all sports - just some more than others, like everyone. You will search in vain for criticism of a sport from me, which is why you didn't quote me on it. Right? That would be five countries, actually. Which is still a pretty small selection of hockey-playing countries but at least greater than "England and Scotland which isn't part of Britain". .

That's why the "right now". The two US comebacks are the best SUCCESS story of the Cup SO FAR. There are better failures. And one hopes there will be much better highlights. My point!! I went to a lot of trouble to point that out twice. A blown call is a blown call. I don't give a stuff who wins any of these matches, not a whit. I want to see the best football, and when the refs prevent it, THAT is when I am outraged. In practice, the referee of record typically has massive disdain for the linesman of record. And actually, I understand that. It took years for hockey to adopt two referees PLUS two linesmen, and top-level basketball now has three equal-status refs. In the gridiron football system, it's kind of a zone officiating. Each official has a section of the field to look out for, and in addition they WILL collaborate at some length. It's rare to see soccer refs collaborate. I'm not religious here, note, just commenting. There HAS to be a better way to officiate top international and club football than the noticable and paltry refereeing system currently used. The odd effup sure, but half a dozen a match? Too much. And I think technology has its place, but the less the better. Hockey ONLY uses it for ruling if the puck crosses the line, baseball ONLY if its unclear whether the ball cleared the fence -- that sort of thing. I hate the US gridiron use of cameras, it's way too intrusive. Also, to be clear, none of the above is about cheating - I doubt there is much or any of that from officials at this level of competition. .

Didn't see the replays then. Well, when you get a chance, you'll see the feet are clearly onside the entire time. You and the faulty linesman probably went by the lean of the bodies. ESPN360 has excellent views (among many others) you can fool the eye but not the technology. I found this example quickly on YouTube. Have a look, see if you want to reconsider "blatant". .